January 12, 2017

I don't know why I kept CNN going after Trump said "Your organization is terrible" to the CNN reporter at the press conference, but I did. I live-blogged the press conference, and I wanted to keep going and live-blog the Senate Judiciary Committee panel that came on next. It was extremely interesting and I had a lot to say, but I was horrified at the image of myself sitting in a chair blogging whatever comes on TV next.

The whole world was talking about Trump anyway. Booker's turn on the stage played to an empty house. And he's lucky it did. He was awful! From the transcript:

I want an Attorney General who is committed to supporting law enforcement and securing law and order. But that is not enough.... Law and order without justice is unobtainable, they are inextricably tied together. If there is no justice, there is no peace.

The Alabama State Troopers on the Edmond Pettis Bridge were seeking law and order. The marchers were seeking justice – and ultimately the greater peace.

What does that have to do with Jeff Sessions? How does Booker tie Sessions to the notion of law and order without justice? Booker is taking the extreme step of testifying against his Senate colleague, with whom he cosponsored a Congressional Gold Medal for those who marched in Selma, Alabama. What does Booker have on Sessions?

Booker doesn't say. He resorts to an embarrassing repetition of the not-very-catchy empty phrase "but his record indicates that he won’t":

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will be required to pursue justice for women, but his record indicates that he won’t.

He will be expected to defend the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans, but his record indicates that he won’t.

He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates that he won’t.

He will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants and affirm their human dignity, but his record indicates he won’t.

He varies the phrase to "His record indicates":

His record indicates that as Attorney General he would obstruct the growing national bipartisan movement toward criminal justice reform.

His record indicates that we cannot count on him to support state and national efforts toward bringing justice to a justice system that people on both sides of the aisle readily admit is biased against the poor, drug addicted, mentally ill, and people of color.

His record indicates that at a time when even the FBI director is speaking out about implicit racial bias in policing and the need to address it; at a time when the last two Attorneys General have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system; and at a time when the Justice Department he would lead has uncovered systemic abuses in police departments all over the United States including Ferguson, including Newark; Senator Sessions would not continue to lead urgently needed change.

Throughout this entire sequence, I was waiting for Booker to get into the record and start persuading us that the record really justifies this conclusion. That never happened. And as I read the text this morning, I can see that Booker's beef is that Sessions is too much of a humble servant, taking the law seriously and doing what it requires. Booker is demanding something most of us don't want: an Attorney General who takes sides.

Booker wants someone who has favorites that he will defend and support. He's saying he wants someone biased, impassioned, and politicized. And Sessions is not that man. If you pay attention and think, it works — for most people — as an endorsement of Sessions.

What was even worse for Booker was what happened after he finished. He'd gone first on a panel of 6 — all black men. (Watch the entire panel at C-SPAN here, beginning at 3:38:24.) The second man to speak was Larry D. Thompson, who spoke in concrete detail about working with Sessions. Suddenly, we're in the world of evidence and real life.

The third speaker was Representative John Lewis, who spoke of history and the wrongs of the past but had nothing fact-based to say about Sessions. After Lewis came another man who, like Thompson, spoke from personal experience.

Then we got Cedric Richmond, chairman of the Black Congressional Caucus, who, like Booker and Lewis, spoke in political generalities, with nothing specific about Sessions. The last speaker was another man like Thompson, who knew and worked with Sessions, spoke warmly about his personal interaction with Sessions, and vouched for Sessions's racial virtue.

"To have a senator, a House member and a living civil rights legend testify at the end of all of this is the equivalent of being made to go to the back of the bus. It's a petty strategy. I don't mind being last, but to have a living legend like John Lewis treated like that is beyond the pale."

Who falls for that sort of sophistry? Why did Booker participate in this awkward drama?

I got the impression we were supposed to see this as a hint of the presidential candidate Booker could be. Maybe he could a great candidate some day. Some people might think it's a shame that Trump got all the attention yesterday and the spotlight didn't shine on Cory Booker. I say he's lucky. He was terrible!

If the civil rights leaders are trying to derail Sessions, they are pitiful inadequate.

Congressmen Lewis seemed to be going through the motions without any real passion. Senator Booker was just talking about himself. The other congressman looked ridiculous with the "back of the bus" comment. They must sense some duty to protest because their friends want them to.

The racial guilt card is no longer trump in this card game. (That was an unintended pun). The card has also been maxed out beyond its credit limit for some time.

Booker used that rhetorical device to display his authentic connection to the preaching style of some black pastors. But that trick won't work a second time. One Ivy League guy pretending to be down with the struggle is enough.

We have lots of reenactments of the Battles of the Revolutionary and Civil War history. They dress up just like the real soldiers, and they carry the same antique weapons carefully used while they sing the same songs, and on signal they shoot and go boom, make smoke and charge just like the real battles.

Francisco D said...They must sense some duty to protest because their friends want them to.

Democrats assign the least supportable accusations to the CBC so criticisms can be deflected with accusations of racism, and in the belief their constituents won't hold it against them. Seems racist to me but Democrats must have their accusations of racism.

I can see that Booker's beef is that Sessions is too much of a humble servant, taking the law seriously and doing what it requires. Booker is demanding something most of us don't want: an Attorney General who takes sides.

Booker wants someone who has favorites that he will defend and support. He's saying he wants someone biased, impassioned, and politicized. And Sessions is not that man. If you pay attention and think, it works — for most people — as an endorsement of Sessions.

Sounds like he went with his closing argument but left out the entire trial part of it. If their biggest argument against Sessions is "just look at the guy! I mean really!" then it should be a fairly smooth confirmation.

"Booker is demanding something most of us don't want: an Attorney General who takes sides." Actually, he probably will take sides. Just not the sides that Booker listed - he _disagrees_ with those sides. On immigration especially, which is why I assume he was chosen, he wants strict enforcement. Pretty popular position.When liberals talk about "social justice", they mean in-justice: where the side they want wins.

If Hillary had won, she would probably have appointed Booker to the Supreme Court.That would have furthered the Chaos of our dying Republic, soon to be replaced by a Global Treaty Commission under Chairman Obama funded with its CO2 Taxes.

The Left has now been reduced to claiming (at least implicitly) that equal treatment under the law is inherently racist because it doesn't favor minorities enough.

But that's not up to the Executive Branch to decide.

According to the laws as written, sometimes:

-- the white cop is right and the black guy is wrong-- the rich guy is right and the poor guy is wrong-- the native-born American is right and the immigrant is wrong.

If you don't like that--if you want a finger on the scale to favor blacks, poor, and immigrants--then Congress or the state legislatures should change the laws. Or appeal to the courts to declare the laws unconstitutional.

But the Executive Branch should not flout the law for political reasons in the meantime.

"What does that have to do with Jeff Sessions? How does Booker tie Sessions to the notion of law and order without justice?" I appreciate the fisking and all, but this comes perilously close to the old faux surprise shtick. How could Booker do this? What's the connection? Who falls for this sophistry? Etc. etc. Progs "fall for it" (they're down with it anyway), progs like it, progs don't give a damn about facts tying Sessions to anything, as long as they can vilify him, prog justice means favoring some groups over others (Black Lives matter, you know), and so on and so forth.

Booker needs to be the "one America" Obama of 2004 if he wants to be president. He should have have supported Sessions while hailing the tradition of equal justice for all. If he didn't get that, he isn't smart enough to be president.

I believe Booker was not picked for VP because the Democrats reasoned that they had the black vote sewed up and racist, mysogynist white men would NEVER vote for a lady President and black VP.

They chose poorly.

They have NO idea that half the country does not vote for people based on race or gender. They can't even imagine that. You either vote their way based on race or gender, or you are a mysogynist racist who voted for worse than Hitler.

Not considering race or gender as primary qualifications does not compute.

There are valid reasons to oppose Sessions, most notably that he doesn't seem keen on civil asset forfeiture reform, which is a cudgel the state uses against its own citizens even without due process or evidence of wrongdoing.

However, my impression is that the Attorney General carries out the law as written. Which sometimes can be unfortunate but beyond his or her power to change the law.

This all has a good side. Maybe people will stop worshiping people like Lewis because of what they did 50 years ago. Besides Lewis is being consistent. He was for Civil rights because it was good for black people. And he lied about the Tea Party and attacked Sessions for the same reason.

I will give Lewis points though. In 2008 McCain went on and on (I think it was the debates) in his phony manner about how much he loved Lewis and what a great guy he was, blah, blah. And Lewis responded by calling McCain a Racist. Loved it.

Race relations will get more healthy as the White boomers die off. Black people aren't special needs kids, they're out equals.

The worst part of Booker's testimony is the large number of accusations made without supporting evidence, yet this may be at least somewhat effective in the political sphere as people hearing it may simply assume that such evidence must exist (for otherwise why would Booker make the accusations)?

But on the matter of "Law and order without justice" etc., the last world belongs (or should belong) to Thomas Sowell. Here's a short post by Sowell on the pursuit of what Sowell calls "cosmic justice":

“I am humbled to be able to participate here and pay tribute to some of the extraordinary Americans whose footsteps paved the way for me and my generation," Booker said at the time. "I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions in being the Senate sponsors of this important award.” --If you play that backwards, he's saying he will stab Sessions in the back if necessary for his political ascension.

I'm not sure what he means that the justice system is biased against the drug addicted and the mentally ill.

Drug addicts are, by their nature, criminals and tend to feed their addictions by committing even more crime. The justice system has a bias against criminals. This is a good thing.

I do agree that the justice system is biased when it comes to the mentally ill, but it is biased in their favor. Due to ill-advised dogoodery, we have released many individuals who are a danger to themselves and others onto the street and get the predictable results. Then they do not always go to prison because they are mentally ill.

The worst thing about this is Booker is probably the best mayor Newark has had in my lifetime.

"What was Holder's "distinguished career" before becoming AG, besides lobbying for the Marc Rich pardon as an AAG under Clinton?"

R/V is not interested in what you and I would call a distinguished career. It is all about the leftist coins collected.

Holder testified against the Arizona bill SB 2010. and when asked if he had read it admitted he had not.

The idiots on the Los Angeles City Council threatened to boycott Arizona ans the staff had to qietly inform them that Los Angeles gets 25% of its electricity from Arizona. The LA Times tried to finesse this.

A boycott from the Los Angeles City Council led Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce to threaten “to renegotiate your power agreements so that Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.”

Of course, LA had no other source. The City Council thinks electricity comes out of the wall.

exhelodrvr1: "The progressives in a nutshell. They have nothing to offer but words that many years ago lost whatever validity they had"

As noted before, the left literally has but one play in the play book and they are playing it. You will recognize this play from every political conflict over the last 50 years.

Just look at the tactics with the lefties giving passes to Code Pink, BLM and other astroturf lefty groups to disrupt the hearings with their catchy catchphrases which the MSM dutifully provides camera and discussion time for (as media/PR force multipliers), the vacuous charges of racist/Nazi/fascist etc.

The left literally has nothing left is completely flummoxed as to why it doesn't seem to be working this time.

All of that along with the defanging of the media/left/"lifelong republicans" in terms of communications flow as well as another several generations of moron lefty activists have been raised and we have the makings of a truly violent and deteriorating "public square" environment as the lefts cognitive dissonance is causing their heads to explode.

Static Ping said...The justice system has a bias against criminals. This is a good thing.--Booker's one with the manipulation of language approach..attempting to conflate legal justice with "social justice". You're not anti "justice", are you?

Booker is the Democratic version of Rubio. Both come across superficially well but there's not much substance underneath the smooth delivery and nice appearance. They are middle weights. Watching them you can really understand why only three senators have been elected president and all three were weak presidents.

What these racist black politicians want is an AG who is as nakedly racist as they are, in the mold of Holder esp, but also Lynch. Too bad. Elections have consequences, and you lost. Obama level black turnout might have been able to flip PA and MI. And might have been able to flip WI, with a couple more Berniebots getting over their butt hurt and to the polls. What a lot of Trump voters wanted is what they are likely to get with Sessions - a color blind Justice Dept. And hopefully one that aggressively goes after the sort of voter fraud that may have made the election closer than it should have been (instead of facilitating it, as Holder did).

Love some of Crooked Hillary's likely cabinet nominees - either easily phished John Podesta or "Slo Joe" Biden for Sec of State? Jamie "The Wall" Goerlich for AG (arguably the govt official with the most personal culpability for the success of the 9/11/01 attacks)? Almost all white, except for an unnamed Black at the EPA (Talk about tokens - esp notable since they were going to fill the post by color, with no apparent regard to qualifications, just to get a Black in the cabinet, if Lynch weren't retained - which I think she would have, after protecting Clinton so ferociously during the campaign). Scary stuff.

Althouse you are so right about Booker and Lewis, and what a big nothingburger their testimony was.

Jeff Sessions has had just one problem, in a highly successful confirmation hearing presentation; the problem has been Sessions, walking back the stupid stuff that Trump has said or Tweeted.

And it is happening in all of the hearings. And in hearing after hearing, we see the clear and obvious pattern; the cabinet nominees all supply reasonable answers, contradicting Trump's earlier insanities.

They interviewed a NAACP leader about the Sessions appointment. He was against it. The interviewer asked the leader if he could name one Republican that he could support for the AG office. He couldn't........This seems to me to be a demonstration not of the leader's commitment to civil rights but rather to his own prejudices. And no one will ever call him out on it.

My thoughts exactly. Booker was giving a political convention speech, rehearsing the one he wants to give in 2020 when he runs for President. He was not testifying. John Lewis, yeah man, you were there. But we're here now. And that back of the bus comment by Richmond! Cheap. Unless I missed something, don't you always start with the nominee and with questions from the committee that has oversight? That would not be the House of Reps which has no oversight. Guys, your race card is getting awfully frayed. Not one particular cited! Not one vote noted!

Poor Cory Booker and Senate Democrats are playing by the old Senate rules. Apparently no one bothered to tell them that their former majority leader abolished the 60-vote supermajority for Cabinet confirmations, and therefore the cry-racism dog will no longer hunt.

"Poor Cory Booker and Senate Democrats are playing by the old Senate rules. Apparently no one bothered to tell them that their former majority leader abolished the 60-vote supermajority for Cabinet confirmations, and therefore the cry-racism dog will no longer hunt."

It may indeed be true, that "only Trump would nominate Sessions." But I would propose two things:1) A Ted Cruz (not my first or second choice as a presidential nominee, but someone who came close to the nomination) might well have nominated Sessions, and perhaps even as a part-political play to reunite the Trump and Cruz wings of Republican politics.2) Jeff Sessions isn't the only conservative lawyer in Washington, or the nation. The Federalist Society membership is in the thousands. There could easily be found other strong conservative AG nominees. Indeed, others who were more classically conservative, and who had less fealty to a thing like Trump.

For me, the Sessions nomination is nice. It was never a drop-dead necessity.

wendybar said... I'm from New Jersey....Have you seen the mess, Corey Booker left in Newark?? Stop voting the color of peoples skin, and vote for real working change!!!

This can be said for any city that has one party rule to some extent. The problem really is not that they are voting for a particular race but because they are voting for the same people who repeatedly fail. Plus one party government is great for corruption. It would do Newark a lot of good if they elected a Republican, even a liberal one. Simply having two viable parties, even if it is the Dems and other Dems would at least help with the corruption.

But as I said before, Booker is probably the best mayor Newark has had in my lifetime that has held the job for any significant period of time. This is a low bar. His predecessor Sharpe James is in prison and he was mayor for two decades. James was a vast improvement over the 16 years of Kenneth Gibson who was a general failure and had a notorious reputation as corrupt. (At least he had the good sense to hire better lawyers so he didn't do prison time.) The current guy is Ras Baraka. To the best of my knowledge he has not gotten into trouble yet. He's the son of Amiri Baraka, the late radical poet who was removed from his position of Poet Laureate of New Jersey by bipartisan consensus after he accused of Israel having foreknowledge of 9/11. Again, that's his father, but it does not bode well. The last Republican to hold the post left in 1953 which was well before the race riots of 1967.